Egypt

United States of Elite versus Donald Trump : Sunni-Saudi-Anglo-Euro-Jihadi axis towards war.

Posted on August 23, 2017. Filed under: Afghanistan, Arab, Army, China, Communist, economics, economy, Egypt, Hindu, History, India, Iran, Islam, Islamic propaganda, Jihad, Muslims, Pakistan, religion, Roman, Russia, Saudi, Shia, Sunni, Syria, Taleban, terrorism, Trump, UK, Ulema, US Presidential elections, USA, Wahabi |

Postulate One: European consumption levels could historically be only maintained by exploiting resources and productivity outside the self-defined territory of Europe (as in Roman expansion dependent on Egyptian grain and “barbarian” slave labour and fecundity).

Postulate Two: USA is an extension of western Europe as shaped in British state form revised under imagined and reconstructed Roman Republic with perceptions and constructions of both what is “European” and what is not – based on cumulative claims of history, both regional and global.

Postulate Three: Europe prioritizes consumption of its elite over ideology.

Most of what is happening now in the USA, in its politics, its legislative bodies, its government and state institutions – all the way to its attitudes towards and handling of or engagement with Islam, Middle East, and Asia can be deduced from the three postulates.

The Roman Republic generated several interesting phenomena that is rarely put in perspective when analyzing modern-day politics of the “western” world. The contest between the Plebs and the Patricians was a contest for power and say in state affairs between the increasingly self-aware Plebs (stemming from their co-option into the armies under people like Marius the uncle of Caesar in turn driven by elite hunger for land and slaves in the ever-expanding “periphery”) and the “Patri-cians” claiming descent from leading founding fathers of the historical Roman colony in Italy and who thereby had hogged the material and monetary benefits of the state formation exercise over the centuries. The Romans went through a phase of submission to non-Roman “rule” as well as “kingship” to finally overthrow “dynastic royalty” but evolving or recasting a new form of authoritarianism legitimized by representative bodies of people – closely followed in essence in the process of formation of USA.

All these are pretty well-known in standard history lessons: what is less discussed is how Roman institutions also institutionalized politico-financial corruption together with formation of well-organized coteries that infiltrated, and manipulated the Roman state institutions for combined business, political and power benefits – running almost as “organized crime”. In fact the model of “mafia” now popularized by Hollywood, typically labeled as originating in remnants of old Roman empire in the medieval such as “Sicily” or “Naples”, had their roots in the system of Roman knights/captains put in charge of various zones/districts of historical Rome. The blurred lines between ambitions of impoverished Patricians like that of the Caesars or the still wealthy Patrician Sulla, the stinking rich Crassus, or the yuppie military genius of a country bumpkin-from-peasant-north maternal uncle of Julius – Marius : they all formed a politically-financially-incestuous vicious competition of various groups of “mafia”.

Thus it is crucial to drop the Hollywood imagery of the “Godfather” and expand it in the reality of US politics on the more historical Roman “mafia” of the Republic and transition-to-empire phase of Rome. Such an “extended” mafia can be both “criminally organized” and “patriotic” or more “transnationally minded” just like the ancient Roman “mafia”.

The current phase can be thus understood as a phase of competition between two domestic groups of “mafia” (in the extended “Roman” sense I am using) where one side has grown close to the Sunni-Saudi interests over a cold-war, and inheritance of Indian Ocean geostrategic burdens of defunct British “political” empire (as in every mature and jaded “empire”, the formal fall of empire-state leaves behind a network of transnational finance and elite of ex-colonies connected firmly to an integrated shared “interests” with the ex-empires successor). This means this side shares the political and hence even religious biases of the Saudi Sunni axis which grew up under British imperial patronage as a supposed barrier to restrict the Ottoman grasp over the “passage” to India. This in turn led to panic scramble by then Russia and Europeans powers wary of the British to try and gain access to Indian Ocean aligning a veritable rivalry between “western” (France/UK) and “eastern” (Germany/Russia) Europe to push to the Persian Gulf. However the ancient contest for supremacy between the west and east of Euphrates that had once ended the Greeks and Cyrus’s house allowing Rome to grow, and similarly exhausted Byzantines and Parthians to allow Islamic jihad to flourish in the “frontier” no-mans land between the two sides – continued in the Arab versus Iran contest, and was used by the completely emasculated remnants of Arab tribes to reassert claims against the “east” and try to repeat their 7th century success using the British and French need to secure the Gulf.

Discovery of oil has gradually shifted the balance of power within the front of  Sunni-Saudi-“western” axis, and WWII drew up an extended “frontier” of two hostile “fronts” running roughly North-East – South-West from Balkans through Syria-Iraq into Persian gulf.

The “western” Anglo fear of Russian breakthroughs in this sector combined with Arab jealousy of the more pre-Islamic nationhood retaining Iran with all consequent better human capital not destroyed as much as in Saudis under mullahcracy – drove the US attempt at wooing Communist China away from USSR, in return China extracting economic entry into global capitalist flow, and an attempt to ring-fence Iran and central-Asian routes from Russia down south by encouraging Islamism in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

However even if this strategy largely succeeded in weakening USSR and led to its overthrow, two problems had been created for US “mafia”: the immensely financially networked with US Saudi lobby’s growing influence among the “mafia” and China’s capture of the US consumer market using its totalitarian state economy and control over Chinese labour. After US had to necessarily engage in the mop-up operations consequent to fall of USSR and Sunni-Saudi lobby’s grasping the opportunity to expand its long-held jihadi ambitions to revive Caliphate style re-conquest of the Middle East, and beyond, parts of US mafia must have realized the growing threat of China’s economy.

However during the long cold-war era, Sunni-Saudi axis had been allowed to become politically entrenched in influencing US foreign policy and thus in the US state institutions and its political class as well as in the instruments of ideological hegemony of modern states – like the media, academics of “humanities”. The faction of US mafia that realizes the supreme importance of China as a threat to their interests (by disrupting the mafia’s finger in the global – “outside of territory” economic exploitation) was the force that allowed someone like Donal Trump to come through. Looking from this perspective, it becomes clear why he had to be “promoted” – they needed an “outsider” or “outcast” or deemed “dilettante” political actor, therefore less likely to have been compromised by the existing pro-Sunni-Saudi pro-China cliques.

That the majority of US state institutions are waging a virtual but desperate war to remove “Trump” from power is simply a manifestation of the failure of the “cold-war” legacy portion of the administration and ideological establishment to grasp the drive and perhaps even realpolitik “sense/pragmatism” of the anti-China “patriotic mafia” as the need of the hour for “US” interests just as overthrow of USSR was in then US interests.

So Trump is being driven to make superficial “compromises” while he is trying to protect the underlying agenda of cutting China down to size. However the pro-Sunni-Saudi US mafia does not want China to be cut down to size as both the Saudis and the Chinese favour each other as hedges for their respective geostrategic ambitions. Saudis do not really want Pakistan to be cut down to size as Pakistan is most helpful in delegating tasks of wahabization and radicalization that serves Saudi geo-strategic ambitions while China does not want Pakistan to be harmed as Pakistan provides a corridor to Indian ocean as well as a useful jihadi counter-balance to India whose territory and population the Chinese see as an obstacle to their own imperial ambitions.

So even if Trump announces a troop increase in Afghanistan, the reality of the situation will simply help Saudi strategy for the zone. The Sunni jihadi assets were first tested on Syria – seen as a rival Shiite state, and on Iraq – but it quickly spiraled out of control revealing the extent of jihadism that Saudis have unleashed which even they can no longer fully control. Russian backing stalled overthrow of the Syrian regime, so that means the “western/European” and Saudi-Sunni jihadi assets need to be “saved” and protected by the pro-Saudi-mafia/European elite from total destruction so they can be unleashed against the real intended targets – Iran and Russia. This means there will be an attempt to carve out a “sovereign” protectorate style enclave for those dubbed “free Syrian army” on the eastern parts of Syria, thereby giving them breathing space and regrouping recouping as well as a Sunni buffer which in turn faces a Kurdi enclave on the east – thereby balancing each other and buffering each other. However the jihadis will be most effective in the greater anonymity of northern Afghanistan and even frontiers of Pakistan to be effective against Iran and Russia. Hence the bulk of the ISIS jihadis will be “helped” by “west” and Saudi-Sunni lobby to “escape” to northern Afghanistan.

US boots on the ground , in the hands of local networks of politics remaining from British imperial days – will effectively be a force that facilitates – willingly or unwillingly – the fall of the “north” to jihadis, while a “progressive” regime will gradually shrink to the south and east of the country around the big cities in the south even while under US “protection”.

The Saudi-Sunni penetration of the US state implies that Trumps “threat” to Pakistan will in effect have little impact. The Sunni-Saudi lobby has slightly different geo-political ambitions compared to what even the pro-Saudi lobby thinks it has. The Sunnis want a repeat of their seventh century jihadi performance – they want one sweep of continuous jihadi territory from Arabia through India into Indonesia in the east, and all the way to Gibraltar in North and Sub-Saharan Africa.

For myself, I see benefit in the expansion of Sunni jihad across Afghanistan and Pakistan and towards India. Jihad destroys pre-existing nationalisms – even the artificial and opportunistically foisted ones like that of Pakistan. It will also weaken the part of the modern Indian state that is ideologically and for other reasons, similar to the pro-Saudi lobby within US “mafia” and which can use state coercive resources to protect the Islamist interests against the non-Muslim majority of the country.  Any genuine resistance to jihad can only come from the vast non-Muslim populations of India but only when their state power actively is no longer able to protect the Islamic infrastructure and allows new state forces to come up that can resist and roll back jihadis back to where it started – in the deserts of Saudis. Jihadis expanding in north Pakistan and Afghanistan will also finally roll-back Chinese presence and effectiveness in this zone.

So the future is bleak and bright.

 

 

 

Advertisements
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Taharrush, Cologne, EU – why Islamic Rights come before Women’s Rights

Posted on January 17, 2016. Filed under: Arab, Christians, Communist, Egypt, feminism, Gaza, Historians with political agenda, History, Hosni Mubarak, Islam, Islamic propaganda, Israel, Jew, Jihad, Left, Marxism, Muslims, neoimperialism, Palestine, Politics, rape, religion, Salafi, Saudi, slavery, Sunni, Syria, Taleban, terrorism, USA, Wahabi |

The new years eve assaults on women in Cologne,  Germany, came apparently as a shock to many [France24_report]. When the first allegations began to crop up on social media, the state bodies responded with pacifiers and reassurances. The standard state tactic of repeating “be calm, be happy, nothing is wrong, everything has been taken care of, everything is as it always has been” line whenever it deems acknowledging the reality can jeopardise its control and domination over the population [State_attempt_at_coverup]. The response to this was a flurry of accusations on social media where individual women came forward to complain of their experiences of that night.

The political authority’s response to this bypass of and challenge to the state attempt to manage social perceptions through the media, and state spokespersons, was typical. The mayor of Cologne, who happens to be a woman, urged women to keep away from men “at an arms length” in public, and not “provoke” cultural sentiments of men from “other” cultures [keep_men_at_arms_length]. State complicity in delaying, or trying to suppress news on assault was exposed in the German public broadcaster, ZDF, apologising for delays. “The news situation was clear enough. It was a mistake of the 7pm ‘heute’ show not to at least report the incidents,” wrote deputy chief editor Elmar Thevessen on the show’s Facebook page.

The common European state, party politics, position seems to be arguing that

  1. Assaults were one-off, localised, not necessarily by men from particular national and religious identities.
  2. Even if assaults took place, they were cover for theft – not sexual but economic motives.
  3. Even if sexual, it was the women’s responsibility not to “invite” such attacks, by not provoking religious cultures which saw European women’s public appearance in dress or styles as provocative and justification for such attacks.
  4. If assaults were acknowledged openly by state bodies, it would strengthen the political “far-right”. Hence they should not be acknowledged.
  5. Maximum effort to delink assaults to Islam’s core cultural attitudes towards women, and if impossible to do – then try to emphasise ethnic, or national, or country origins of assaulters, and make it country or region specific, hoping to suppress the Islamic connection.

Interestingly, each of these positions expose much more about what is really going on than their proponents would like to expose.

It seems that the assaults were reported by women specifically to be by men of particular ethnic, national identities. It seems, assaults were not one-off, with similar incidents reported from Hamburg and other German cities, as well as from Finland and Sweden and Austria [pan-European_sex_attacks] and the attacks were explicitly sexual. The testimony of women at the receiving end, shows explicitly the hostile, angry, sexual aggression [explicit_sexual_nature_of attacks]. That snatchings, lootings, muggings accompanied sexual assaults, only adds to a viewpoint that sees the woman in public as free “property” who has no right to be with any valuables of her own: that is she herself is a “property” and a possession and belongs to the strongest man or men who can possess her and everything that she carries with her.

The attempt to pass this off as just  strange new, one off, only first time this year, phenomenon – is also jeopardised by the revelations of an obvious attempt at suppression of reports of similar persistent events in Sweden in the past – actually in summer 2015 [Swedish_media_suppression_of_reports].

The Islamic connection should have been transparent even if one did not study Islamic social history in details. There were reports of women demonstrators and journalists being asexually assaulted in Tahrir square in Egypt in the heady days of “revolution”. At the time most of these reports were suppressed, and the women concerned, even if from the “west”, characteristically shut up their mouths. The majority of women in western media or women’s rights activism appear to be very outspoken and “brutally and unflinchingly honest” when reporting, or investigating sexual assaults, sex-slavery, alleged on non-Muslim cultures, but their eloquence dries up when reporting on Muslim atrocities on women. In the past the meme of Israel, “Zionism” being the bigger, badder enemy seems to have been a persistent excuse used by senior, or “powerful” female voices in the anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian lobby to suppress dissemination of incidents of sexual assault, torture or slavery practised by revolutionary and heroic Palestinian society under “siege” as pointed out by Phyllis Chessler [feminism_as_protector_of_jihadi_violence_on_women’s_rights]. The following news will be sought to be dismissed as “Zionist” propaganda [Israeli_Muslim_teen_trafficked_into_sex_slavery_in_Palestine]. As Shmuley points out, western “liberal” feminism itself is often becoming an instrument for eventual ideological subversion of western women to acceptance of the attitudes encoded in Islam where a whole lot of political ideologies converge towards submission to Islam by non-Muslim societies [Shmuley_vs_Naomi]. In the words of Phyllis, [Feminist_silence_on_Islamic_assault_on_women’s_rights],

Feminists are, typically, leftists who view “Amerika” and white Christian men as their most dangerous enemies, while remaining silent about Islamist barbarians such as ISIS.

Feminists strongly criticize Christianity and Judaism, but they’re strangely reluctant to oppose Islam — as if doing so would be “racist.” They fail to understand that a religion is a belief or an ideology, not a skin color.

The new pseudo-feminists are more concerned with racism than with sexism, and disproportionately focused on Western imperialism, colonialism and capitalism than on Islam’s long and ongoing history of imperialism, colonialism, anti-black racism, slavery, forced conversion and gender and religious apartheid.

“Taharrush”, the rape-gauntlet “game”  [Taharrush_Islamic_spatial_strategy_to_isolate_and_rape_in_public] that surfaced in Tahrir square was a direct product of Muslim attitudes towards women in public, especially those less strictly dressed as per Islamic expectations and who were somehow therefore deemed to be declaring themselves as publicly sexually available women. The source of these attitudes lies in Arab Muslim ancient Islamic penchant for taking sex-slaves of women in raids, publicly strip them, rape them before husbands and male relatives to emphasise Islamic superiority even reported to be happening under the founder of Islam [surviving edited and abridged biography originally by Ishaq], and the much later codified Hidaya which stipulates the woman’s entire body and its complete use-right to have been bought either by nikaah rites or “right hand possession” war booty, or simply the woman in “hand” or possession. What happened in Cologne, was the same “Tahharush”, and both women and police would have been better equipped mentally and physically to deal with the situation had “Tahharush” – the dark side of the reality of the majority in the so-called Arab Spring was allowed to be openly discussed and noted in western media – when it happened almost 3-4 years ago.

What emerged at Tahrir square should have told the west and the world clearly, that what was being portrayed as a “revolution”, was in reality an Islamist reaction, which retained and in some sense enhanced acutely all the attitudes in classical jihadi Islam nurtured carefully over the years by the mullahcracy with whom the west compromised during the Cold War and ensured their protected continuance in preaching and preserving the jihadi core memes of Islam as an useful ally and antidote against spread of Communist ideas in Muslim world. West intervened specifically against any regime in any Muslim majority country that seemed to be incorporating deemed socialist elements in governance or society and thus made common cause with the most reactionary of elements among the mullahcracy. Each “socialist” regime experiment, however brief, in the Islamist countries did somewhat try to combat the mullah’s imposition of sex-slavery like conditions on women, tried to liberalize access to education, health, professional and economic avenues and opportunities to women. But just as now, western “political” theory of suppressing everyone else’s rights, or all humanitarian rights to the cause of defeating and crushing the “biggest/baddest” enemy – the mullahcracy and its Islam was deemed a less dangerous and less important threat – even if it was crushing women future and preparing whole generations of men in the sex-slaver mindset.

All the above reports throws up some key common observations,

  1. not only men in authority – but women who would be considered professionally empowered, with recognised public voice, either try to shift the burden of being safe on the women. Sometimes this involves de-facto urging to submit to cultural religious norms of “outside” cultures which clash with the native one on perception of women’s rights. Sometimes this is combined and bolstered by the bogey of not strengthening the far-right.
  2. thus the underlying value system of modern Europe is exposed in its subconscious, perhaps unintended, acknowledgement that all its so-called humanitarian universalist values are subject to preference orderings. The preference orderings are unstated, to allow maximum possible flexibility in contextually and opportunistically applying the officially touted formal values.
  3. for those in power in Europe,  staying in power or preserving their peer group’s political dominance over the state and society comes above any other humanitarian values shouted about. Thus a domestic political power struggle with the “right” is justification enough to relegate women’s rights as below that of Islamic cultural rights.
  4. empowerment of women, professionally, economically, and in political ranks or positions or hierarchies has no relevance for women’s rights as a social segment. Female activists themselves have taken on the generic authority structure attitudes they lambast as patriarchal and male chauvinism, in urging women to submit to cultural values that denigrate and sexually humiliate women.
  5. Europe’s liberalism has actually protected and nurtured a submissive urge towards Islam, and protection of the image and covering up of the reality of Islam. [State_complicity_in_Islamization_in_Germany].

Making women’s rights an exclusive women-only preserve, refusing to face the reality of Islamic connection to attitudes towards women, may not only jeopardise the future liberties of women, but also subvert the wider civil liberties of the freer world. The ideological strategy in the pro-Islamic has to be fought by calling their bluff and exposing the underlying dishonesty and subversion covered up by tactical dissimulation.

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

On academics and their open letters : neo-imperialism from afar

Posted on April 22, 2014. Filed under: Bangladesh, China, Christians, Communist, diaspora, economics, economy, Egypt, financial crisis, Gaza, Hindu, Historians with political agenda, History, India, Indian National Congress, Islam, Islamic propaganda, Israel, Jew, Jihad, Kashmiri Pundit, Left, Maoism, Marxism, Muslims, neoimperialism, Pakistan, Palestine, Politics, rape, religion, Salafi, Saudi, Shia, slavery, Sunni, Syria, Taleban, terrorism, Turkey, UK, USA, Wahabi |

 

A group of sixty odd academics in various UK institutions have decided to join the Indian electoral fray by posting an open letter to the “left” leaning Independent under the headline:

Letters: The idea of Modi in power fills us with dread

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/letters/letters-the-idea-of-modi-in-power-fills-us-with-dread-9273298.html

“As the people of India vote to elect their next government, we are deeply concerned at the implications of a Narendra Modi-led BJP government for democracy, pluralism and human rights in India.”

Concern is always nice. Concern about democracy, pluralism, and human rights are particularly nice to hear about. But when these concerns are raised by voice which are only selectively concerned, that troubles us. These academics are not concerned about continued Saudi rule and its impact on the middle East’s prospects for democracy, pluralism and human rights. They are completely silent about Palestinian ruling junta (that is what it is – because each one of them come solidly from military outfits, and once-dubbed-terrorist groups), or for China, or for Pakistan, or Afghanistan. But more of this at the end.

“Narendra Modi is embedded in the Hindu Nationalist movement, namely the RSS and other Sangh Parivar groups, with their history of inciting violence against minorities. Some of these groups stand accused in recent terrorist attacks against civilians.”

The slyness of academic evasiveness starts to reveal itself now. It is the same method by which so-called professional historians create new impressions of truth by weaving propositions into a narrative and creating a new narrative where propositions become blended into certainties. Note the smooth blending of “some” “stand accused”. At one smooth stroke, these academics of high integrity have made an “accusation” appear as “convicted”, and “some” is used to taint the “whole”.

By their logic, the Congress parivar (family) is embedded in a politics which has had very dubious roles, and sometimes outright bias in defacto protecting Muslim violence from Nehru’s time at power during the Partition, with selective targeting of alleged Hindu violence. Usually the Congress hides behind the legalistic excuse – again first used by Nehru to allow the Islamic violence in Noakhali, Bengal to continue while he personally and immediately intervened in Bihar where Muslims were at the receiving end – that when the Congress sees the victims as non-Muslim, non-Christians, it mumbles about law and order being a state prerogative. Whereas, when Muslims appear to be the target, Congress sees it as a union/federal/central issue. This was the cover under which Congress did not intervene in the genocide of Hindus of Jammu and Kashmir in the late 80’s because in this case it was the Muslims who were the perpetrators. The helplessness of the Hindu surviving refugees, was perhaps the root cause of the revival of the Hindutva” movement these academics so lambast – because many Hindus in the wider arena of India began to realize the selective bias of the Indian state under the Nehrus and the Congress in favour of whitewashing and allowing Islamist violence to thrive, especially if such violence was directed against Hindus.

The Congress is therefore imbedded in a movement, that has always protected Islamism and Islamist pretensions, and have at various times carried elements in its governments who are connected to or stand accused of rioting and communal hatred which amount to acts of terrorism.

“We recall the extreme violence by the Hindu Right in Gujarat in 2002 which resulted in the deaths of at least 1,000 people, mostly Muslims. This violence occurred under Modi’s rule, and senior government and police officials have provided testimony of his alleged role in encouraging or permitting it to occur.”

Recalling is a good thing, but if what happened before under a regime historically is proof of repeating the same then the Congress should be even more in the dock – for the Partition riots happened under the government of Jawaharlal Nehru, and ant-Sikh pogroms happened under Rajiv-Gandhi/Congress, and all the riots that happened before the BJP came first to power, with such spectacular ones as in Bhagalpur, were also under various Congress governments.

The academics think that by adding the word “extreme” to “violence” they can make a special case against Modi -as they perhaps feel, and rightly so, that “violence” has been the norm for anti-Hindu attacks by Islamists or Christianists too. Maybe for them those “other” violence are genuine expressions of grievances,

“Some of his close aides have been convicted for their involvement, and legal proceedings are ongoing in the Gujarat High Court which may result in Modi being indicted for his role. He has never apologised for hate speech or contemptuous comments about various groups – including Muslims, Christians, women and Dalits. His closest aide has been censured recently by India’s Election Commission for hate speech used in this election campaign.

“There is widespread agreement about the authoritarian nature of Modi’s rule in Gujarat, further evidenced by the recent sidelining of other senior figures within the BJP. This style of governance can only weaken Indian democracy. “

Different groups of people agree among themselves about different things. Concepts like “authoritarian” are so abstract, and inconcretizable, that tons of academic papers have tried to make academic careers out of hair-splitting over the very definition of “authoritarian”. Many communists are still dewy eyed over Stalin or Mao, and have “widespread agreement” among themselves over their most fortunate appearance on earth. Same goes for Hitler. Jews have “widespread agreement” in spite of a portion of Jewish origin academics hosted by various UK universities to the contrary – that existence of Israel is perfectly justified even at the cost of Palestinians. There is widespread agreement among large swathes of Muslims about the necessity and justifiability of historical violent genocidic jihad, and significant groups have “widespread agreement” among themselves about the benevolence of sex-slavery of the non-Muslim as part of jihad.

Typically when groups do not want to spell out the membership of the group, or are unsure about their numerical strength in proportion to the wider population – they turn to vagueness, or unpinnable conjectures -so that they can never be called out for lying or pretending, and claiming “widespread agreement” is one way of doing that.

The “widespread agreement” is among this tiny coterie of Indian origin academics – probably groomed and selected in the early days of their studenthood and careers by previous generations and peer groups of British interest serving academics, like the Marxist academics who desperately denied any role of triangular Atlantic slave trade in the kickstart of the British industrial revolution.

The curious bit is about somehow Modi being guilty of sidelining “senior” party members as proof of exceptional authoritarianism. All the Nehru-family members have sidelined senior party members to come to power. Does it not make them even more authoritarian already?

“Additionally, the Modi-BJP model of economic growth involves close linking of government with big business, generous transfer of public resources to the wealthy and powerful, and measures harmful to the poor.”

This is actually hilarious. For this is what actually has been happening since Margaret Thatcher in Britain, happened too even under Tony Blair, and has accelerated under Cameron. Do they want to say that all that has led UK down the drain? Or do they have not the courage to spell out those pearls of wisdom to the masters of their souls? It happens at even grander scale in China, where party-apparatchiks and their minions or progeny ruling over millions in their regional satrapys hog investments from a financial sector which is still centrally and nationally owned as well as managed. No, these academic’s can only open their mouth against the “Hindu” India, and the BJP and Narendra Modi. They have not open lettered even on the very entertaining case of Ukraine, where “right wing nationalists” have been on the rampage with alleged support of big biz and oligarchs who grew into tycoons with diversion of state investments. Naturally – since doing so is not in the current interests of the British ruling interests.

“A Modi victory would likely mean greater moral policing, especially of women, increased censorship and vigilantism, and more tensions with India’s neighbours.”

These academics never protested Muslim censorship, moral policing of women, vigilanteism in Indian Kerala, or Uttar Pradesh, or Bihar, or West Bengal, or Assam, or Christians doing exactly the same in Nagaland and Mizoram, and attempting to do the same in Manipur. They cannot mention anything about those other communities or religions or states, because they cannot afford to show these other ones in the same or worse light than the “Hindus” – then they lose the affection of the system.

Overall, then what does it show about such concerted concerns from such groups?

Let us go back to the very beginning again of their open letter. They are claiming that democracy, pluralism, human rights in a one specific distant nation, is going to be trumped if one man and his party or political alliance gets elected in a plural democracy which as yet respects human rights. One can see why they have been allowed to succeed as academics, because they can pretend an intellect which can be used to legitimize the complete lack of any logical capacity on issues that are of interest to a post-imperialist neo-imperialist state.

The west-European political dogma of the political class has now run into a fatal dilemma. They either have to accept that democracy and pluralism can be used, to subvert, overturn, or cover anti-democracy and non-pluralism – which makes themselves open to analysis as tow whether they had been doing and continue to do so themselves.

Or they have to find escape clauses that can be used selectively to target nations and regimes that they see as obstacles in the way of their agenda of global domination, within their dogma that still allows some mantle of legitimacy for their own systems.

The method being tried out in general for a couple of decades, is trying to enforce a so-called consensus or “widespread agreement”, on very vague and often duplicitous or contradictory criteria to judge if the “consensus” value system is being subverted or not. The west-European dogma thinks it has found an escape clause that can cover their selective neo-imperialist agenda – claim that a certain vague outline of democracy, pluralism and human rights exists – whose identification and verification lies solely in their own hands, which then justifies imperialist intervention in other nations, to overturn regimes, assassinate significant individuals, or economically and militarily destroy the fundamentals of that nation.

In order to find out in whose interests any self-proclaimed group of experts, academics, humanitarians, activists actually are acting for – we just need to check out what they remain silent on in contrast to what they choose to pick on. These open-letter academics do not criticize Hamas or Palestinian authority parts for their Jew-cleansing hate campaigns, torture, rape, murder, or that by the so-called freedom-fighters in Syria, or those in Kosovo and Croatia against Serbs in the 90’s, or the Bahraini state, or the Saudis, or Pakistan, or China, or western Ukraine, or Turkey, or Egypt, or even in their own backyard where the state ruthlessly cracks down with full state violence on peaceful protesters against economic destruction of the commoner.

Just compare their stances on these “other” stuff – and you can identify whom they work for, in whose interests.

 

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 2 so far )

Delwar Hussein Sayedi found guilty as war-criminal Dilu Razakar : to be hanged for murder, genocide and rape.

Posted on February 28, 2013. Filed under: Army, Bangladesh, Bengal, Egypt, Hindu, History, Hosni Mubarak, Islam, Islamic propaganda, Jihad, Muslims, neoimperialism, Pakistan, Politics, rape, religion, Salafi, Saudi, Shahbag, Taleban, terrorism, UK, Wahabi |

Is it time to celebrate? Perhaps at least the hope that an Islamist war criminal – who explicitly used Islamic memes long existing and preached and propagandized to the faithful brainwashed of mullahcracy subjugated and terrorized societies, to rape, loot, forcefully convert, murder, and commit genocide in collaboration with the jihadist army of Pakistan in 1971 – might, just might be hanged. Why is that unique? Because even the famously just International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) could not find any Muslim guilty of any war crimes or crimes against humanity  in the Balkan civil war, even though allegations existed against organizations like the Kosovo Liberation Army, but found almost all the Serbs accused – guilty.

Rarely have the international pretenses of justice ever found a Muslim war-criminal guilty and worthy of passing sentences of execution. Even more importantly, no mullah, no Muslim theologian – self-proclaimed or actually graduating through any of the Islamist educational networks, have been found guilty of war-crimes and crimes against humanity in spite of allegations. No one wants to talk about the Afghan Taliban leadership as fit for trials for war-crimes and crimes against humanity. No one talks of Hafeez Sayid or other Islamist Ulema leading, and producing the doctrines as well as the jihad factories nourished by the dawa system in Pakistan, as a criminal against humanity.

In that sense, the Bangladeshi youth at Shahbag have scored a first. They show a glimmer of hope – that one day the totalitarianism represented by Islamism will be forced to modernize and come out of its terror tactic of maintaining power by violently opposing and crushing all dissent and any criticism.

That the Jamaat leadership and the entire spectrum of Islamist parties and movements in Bangladesh are actually  Fascist totalitarian dictatorship aspirants, is shown by the following revealing Islamist mindset:

(a) they declare criticism of their leader’s past activities as equal to criticism of “Islam”. Criticism of Islam is “atheism”.

(b) they declare that atheism deserves the punishment of killing. “Atheists” must be killed as per Islamists.

(c) Jamaat not only targets their critics at Shahbag who are predominantly Muslims by birth, but Jamaat has targeted non-Muslim communities, both people and temples of Hindus and Buddhists in its programme of violent confrontation that is going on for more than a week.

(d) Islamists outside Muslim-dominated countries, have been organizing to demand that “Shahbag atheists” be punished,  and not unsurprisingly – they have shown their loudest presence in the United Kingdom, which appears to have grown into a haven for pockets of primarily Pakistani led Islamism and Islamist propaganda aimed at establishing Islamic totalitarianism in Europe as part of a wider programme of islamization.

What should the Shabag youth be aware of ?

(1) They should remember, that Fascists always triumph when a more liberal, critical, popular movement with progressive aspirations starts and shows promise of almost nearing success, but cannot or is prevented from succeeding to gain a decisive share of power. This was how Russian Bolsheviks, French Jacobins, German Nazis gained power.

(2) Bangladeshi society as a whole is tilted towards youth – age wise – demographically. But the entire society is a continuous demographic relic of past times and social as well as religious fossils. The hold of mullahcracy runs deep – fostered by decades of dictators, sections of the army, and international Islamist forces as well as their cold-war patrons in the west.

(3) In a confrontation like this, Bangladeshi society is likely to split into roughly a 40-40-10-10 split. This is based on a rough estimate from past few elections, where, 40% go for what I dub the covert Islamists, represented within the Awami League, 40% go for the overt Islamists, represented within the BNP+Jamaat spectrum, 10% are really seculars, and 10% are undecided – who swing elections in the first past the post system.

(4) The Shabag youth probably represent around 15-20% –  the more educated, more urbanized, sections of the overall youth population. This does not mean that they are going to be defeated. Determined and audacious minorities have always been the one and only harbinger of change of societies and political systems. However, the dangers they must be aware of is that of complacency. There is a portion of rural youth kept carefully away from modernization by the collaborative structure of feudal remnants, land-grabbers (the primary motivation for supporting Pakistan was the hope in the middle and upper-middle level of rural Muslim gentry to gain the land and women and wealth of Hindus), virulent Islamists, collaborators and rapists and genociders of ’71 protected under pressure subsequently by the international Islamist networks, and the network of predominantly Saudi funded (and funded by charities working from western nations like UK) dawa-madrassa net.

(5) the state structure of Bangladesh will necessarily carry Islamist elements in its armed wings, intelligence, and administration.  These have been carefully nurtured from even the Liberation war times. There is a genuine possibility of a covert call to arms by the jihadists against the Shahbag movement.

(6) the youth should form an organizational structure, while keeping leadership in a group – so that individuals targeted for elimination will not stop the movement. They should remember that Islamist strategy of terror is “total terror”. From the time of the founder, verbal dissenters or critics were targeted for elimination – as in a female poetess accused of lampooning the leader of the early Islamics – and whose assassination was called for from within the early mosque. Families, loved ones, are targeted too – for the Fascist Islamist mullahcracy’s mind is a sadist one. It seeks not only to give pain, but it enjoys the very act of giving pain and that its victim is suffering mentally as well as physically.

The Egyptian youth have had trouble because they trusted the more established political parties pretending sympathy and failed to create a political structure of their own. The Shahbag youth should not make this error. They should understand that even the Awami League represents primarily an aging generation – and who therefore have greater identification with Islamist undercurrents. They will show this in signs of conciliatory tone towards Islamism, and try to prove themselves as “proper Muslims”. In turn this shows the inner ideological affiliations which even if weaker than that of BNP – is still an affiliation to the Islamists.

The Shahbag youth resistance will be sought to be controlled by both the major power elite factions in Bangladeshi politics. If they can manage to control, they will eventually dismantle this movement – for they do see it as a threat to their own established power structures.

Islamists have however made a blunder. By equating criticism of war-crimes and war-criminal Islamists as anti-Islam, and therefore equivalent to atheism, and therefore fit to be killed – they have revealed what Islamism is really all about. They have managed to show that Islamism is equal to war-crimes, and that atheism by criticizing such depravity – proves itself pro-humanity and not anti-humanity as Islamism does in contrast.

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 so far )

Why a terror blast at inner-city Hyderabad : Owaisi’s Caliphate? Possible green on green Sunni Wahabi/Salafi jihad against Shias and Ahmedyyas.

Posted on February 22, 2013. Filed under: Ahmedyya, Arab, Bangladesh, Christians, Communist, Egypt, Hindu, History, Hyderabad, India, Islam, Islamic propaganda, Jihad, Maoism, Muslims, Pakistan, Politics, religion, Roman, Salafi, Saudi, Shia, Sunni, terrorism, Wahabi |

Indian and international media will have a field day speculating on the twin blasts killing many and injuring even more in the Indian city of Hyderabad, India. The security agencies of India, perhaps under proper political correctness imposed by “secular” regimes, will discover “saffron” hands behind the blast.

However, I would like to speculate on another possibility. That of “green on green” jihad by one sect of Muslims against others. The bane of all monotheistic, organized, textual and doctrinaire religions is the need for evermore apparent perfection and purity. That in turn almost always leads to hyperfine distinctions in interpretation of fixed ancient texts, based on which each new faction derides and when feasible, tries to eliminate the other factions if necessary by violent means. The reason as to why strictly textual religions almost surely land up in such political struggles for power is an entirely different issue, and not for this post.

The fact of the matter is however, that all three of Judaism, Christianism, and Islamism – would have fared far better had they not bled each other and themselves, in fratricidal and internecine bloodshed sourced from this contest over who is the “purest” within the family -so to speak. The Byzantine and Italian Roman church’s murderous jealousy of Arrianism had no small role in the eventual fall of Gothic Christian power in Spain to yield place to  Al Andalus. In the end the “Roman” calculation paid off through the Reconquista -but meanwhile almost 800 years of Islamic rule had to be endured (how “glorious” or “civilizing” it was – is issue of another debate).

The Byzantine iconodule versus iconoclast violence, and the three-cornered fight with the Coptic brotherhood, led to possibly quick capitulation of Coptic Egypt before Arab Muslim armies, and the roll-back of Byzantine power from south of the Bosphorus before the early pious Caliph armies.

The violent iconodule versus iconoclast Christian contest again perhaps had a significant influence on how early Islam shaped itself and placed itself as, with similar intra-faith conflicts starting up within Islam from its earliest days.

Most of the world has become aware of the intolerance of the most influential, (because of oil and “western” connections) faction of Islam – that of Sunni Wahabism, and in another direction also Salafism. However what is often overlooked is that as much as the Ummah theological leadership is looking to subvert the non-Muslim world for eventual conquest and enslavement, they reserve an equal violence for those they deem “less pure” than themselves in doctrinal interpretation of the unchanging text.

Recently Hyderabad was in the news – because a scion of the wealthy Islamic clan of the Owaisis of Hyderabad, had made typical Islamist speeches warning of violence towards Hindus. Owaisis have old family connections to pre-Independence reactionary regimes of the Nizam.  The Nizam was a key figure of Islamism in pre-Independence India, and had many close and influential friends among the planners and plotters of the British ruling circles. Nizam was a reluctant joiner of the Republic, and as a last ditch effort had unleashed his genocidic jihadi Razakars on the majority Hindus of his state, in looting, raping and massacres as per true jihadi legacy prior to the Indian army marching into the capital. In fact a certain ancestral clan relative of the current Owaisi’s had been very active in the Islamist movement that turned violent, and had been imprisoned by the Indian government after accession of the state.

It has been suggested by some researchers that he was “released” and quietly allowed to emigrate to Pakistan and his Islamist party under its new avatar MIM allowed to “revive” post-Independence because the Congress got increasingly worried at the resurgence of the Communists in the state and the city.

Subsequent Congress governments, appear to have coincided with the increasingly sharp religious identity politics among competing factions of both Christianism and Islamism that in a lop-sided but indirect way also involves the Maoists. The pulse of this three-cornered and very murky religious politics can be estimated from under the heavy fog of media and regime protection of so-called “minority” sentiments in the periodic and too stinky to be entirely suppressed scandals involving financial and other sorts of corruption that also reach into religious halos.

But what perhaps has gone under the radar for a long time, is the observation that more Sunni influence appears to be showing up in Andhra Pradesh – and its capital city Hyderabad – mainly though the tell-tale signs of spread – the mosques and “dawa” institutions. With such growth, and a possible Gulf connection behind providing the material means to sponsor such institutional growth – has come the inevitable signs of Saudi-esque  Wahabi intolerance – against other Muslim factions deemed “less pure”.

These less pure factions are those of the Shia and the Ahemedyya. Orthodox Sunnis berate the Ahemedyyas verbally when they are militarily powerless, and behead or torture to death when they have state protection – as in Pakistan and in some cases even in Indonesia or Bangladesh. Hyderabad is actually a significant centre for the Ahmedyyas and the Shias.  In fact , just the previous year there were reports headlined :

India: Ahmadiyya Muslim Mosque Attacked by Militant Clerics and Mob in Hyderabad

Source: http://ahmadiyyatimes.blogspot.ie/2012/03/india-ahmadiyya-muslim-mosque-attacked.html

The new angle to be looked into Islamic terror on the subcontinent is the added Sunni Wahabi and Salafist trend of also cleaning up their intra-Islamic rivals, especially Shias and Ahmedyyas.

 

 

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 so far )

Salute to the youth at Shahbag, Dhaka, Bangladesh.

Posted on February 16, 2013. Filed under: Arab, Army, Bangladesh, Bengal, Christians, Communist, Egypt, Hosni Mubarak, Islam, Islamic propaganda, Left, Marxism, Muslims, neoimperialism, Pakistan, Palestine, Politics, religion, Taleban, terrorism |

I should have written this a long time ago, and only I am to blame for the lapse. The youth of Bangladesh, at least the significant portion of the youth of the country worth calling “the youth” at all – have “occupied” Shahbag, a spot of spring sunshine and resurgence and hope – in the country’s capital Dhaka.

They have been calling for the execution by hanging of the war-criminals, those Razakar or Jamaat-e-Islami or Islamists accused and convicted of war crimes, or crimes against humanity – of rape, genocide, murder, massacres, tortures during the nine month long direct struggle against Pakistani occupation in 1971.

Quite some time ago, on the eve of the Egyptian youth uprising – I had posted on this blog about the two stage and perhaps three stage struggle that the youth of Egypt would have to undertake. In Islamic societies at the level of Egypt, which had just come out of the phase of pseudo-secular dictatorships in cahoots with Islamist clergy under the carpet and a semi-religious alliance between the dictator, clergy, and western powers – the struggle is two phased.

In the first phase, leftists and liberals are unleashed to lead the overthrow of the autocrat. Underneath, the mullahcracy is prepared for action by their foreign handlers. Once popular anger is publicly poured out to justify withdrawal of support from the erstwhile “western” ally, the mullahcracy is unleashed as a legitimate alternative “government” to prevent “chaos” [whenever that word is unleashed on the public – it implies specific imperialist terminology perfected during European colonial enterprises], and the innate sadism latent in all mullahcracy can be used to eliminate the liberals as well as the radical portion of the youth. Peace of the graveyard then adorns both the religion of peace and the mullahcracy’s handlers in western capitals.

This was the pattern that emerged in Iraq of post WWII, in Shah’s Iran, in Nasser and Sadat’s Egypt, and even in Bangladesh.  The popular anger against the Pakistani sadism that started even as early as 1948 through the continued repression on peasant movements of the Tebhaga phase, was focused primarily by youth and student activists leaning towards the Left through the Language movement. It was this radical section of the youth that drew the politics of Bangladesh (then East Pakistan) towards complete independence and was also used by a section of the Awami League which had already started on a separate path from the old Muslim League.

The liberals and the leftists saw the Liberation struggle as militant revolutionary movement, and the west saw their opportunity in that if the military sadists in their pay in Pakistan failed to properly control the populace, the liberals could be allowed to overthrow the regional junta. Meanwhile the mullahcracy could be prepared for a helpful coup and back-to-Islamism new dictatorship. So Mujib’s entire family was wiped off, including kids (a sign that Islamists were set the task of assassination – typically modern Christian “western” thinking on assassinations go along more targeted individual elimination to serve as a lesson for the descendants) and a new dictatorship came under which the mullahcracy could come to power again . The process of elimination of the youth force and the liberals or left started even during Sk. Mujib’s tenure – indicating that the real militant force in the country, the coercive parts of the state and significant portions of the military – were connected to the mullahcracy and the latter’s supporters in foreign nations.

So as in Egypt, I would have expected at least one generation needing to go by – the youth that rose up in the first overthrow – to fail, to see their hopes dashed in the revival of the mullahcracy who revive all the older repressive forms and even roll back some of the modernizing windows provided by the old dictators. It would be their descendants – who would therefore rebel against the sop provided by the Islamist+western axis, against the mullahcracy itself.

This is what awaits Iran, Egypt or Bangladesh. It will be another cycle to even  the start of the process in Palestine or Saudi Arabia because the Islamist authoritarians that will be or are now in power are yet to reveal their inner sadism fully.

But Shabag in Dhaka is a flicker, a hope of eventual liberation, the first steps to the long walk to freedom from totalitarianism.

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Who’s afraid of Afzal Guru’s hanging and “damaging consequences”? The thin shell of India’s self-appointed secularists.

Posted on February 9, 2013. Filed under: Ayodhya, Bangladesh, Bengal, Christians, Communist, Delhi, Egypt, exile, Hindu, Historians with political agenda, History, India, Islam, Islamic propaganda, Jihad, Kashmir, Kashmiri Pundit, Left, Maoism, Muslims, neoimperialism, Pakistan, Politics, rape, religion, Taleban, terrorism |

Seema Mustafa, a noted journalist, wrote a piece on Rediff  http://www.rediff.com/news/column/hanging-could-have-damaging-repercussions/20130209.htm– about the possibly “damaging” consequences of the rather quiet hanging of Afzal Guru – an Indian from the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir, and an accused as well as convicted of a murderous terrorist attack on the Indian Parliament.

Mustafa’s primary concerns can be summarized as

(1) supposed signs of “bias” in a section of Indian journalists over questions of “nationalism”

(2) supposed allegation that Afzal did not have a fair trial or adequate representation

(3) supposed fear of “damaging consequences” of the hanging.

Mustafa brings out everything that is wrong with the Indian media’s long history of playing and pretending “secularism” which effectively became Hindu/Saffron bashing while selectively whitewashing, even protecting the image of so-called “minority” religions by clamping down on anything negative motivated by such religions. She writes in such frank tones of a sense of betrayal, that she possibly does not realize how she has exposed the underlying religious politics of selective favouritism that plagues her profession.

A television news anchor, shortly after Parliament terror attack accused Afzal Guru was hung by the government in Tihar jail, declared, ‘All nationalist, secular and progressive people support this.’

That was just one statement amidst a cacophony of euphoric reactions to the hanging, but stood out as many of us who have been opposing the death penalty and questioning the fairness of the Afzal Guru trial certainly do not regard ourselves as communal and reactionary or for that matter anti-national.

Quite the contrary really, and so it did sound strange when journalists supporting death by hanging, refusing to question the fact that Guru did not get a capable lawyer through the trial, and blocking out the responses of those raising such issues, so easily put large segments of the Indian population into their self-defined ‘anti-national’ frame.

And so before analysing the possibly disastrous consequences of this hanging, it is imperative to understand the mindset of television news anchors who have successfully managed to convert personal beliefs into news, and trash all voices of sanity and sobriety that seek answers to complex questions. News channels are supposed to report the news and not give their editorial comments to a point where contrary voices are restricted from giving their views.

Most interesting to read! Now did the colleagues of Mustafa, only report the “news” and not give their editorial comments to the point of restricting contrary voices from giving their views when it came to talking about the rape, eviction, enforced migration – each and every element of genocide by most current standards of definition of a genocide – on the Kashmiri pundits? How many of Seema Mustafa’s colleagues practised what she wants them to – when the targets were Hindus from Kashmir Valley, or did they care to give space to view from the “other” side of what is alleged to have happened in the burning of returning Hindu pilgrims in a locked train compartment at Godhra, that is supposed to have led to the inter-community clashes in Gujarat which has been mad einto an international issue. I remember watching a news report from a well-known “secular” channel of India based in New Delhi – during the heyday of the Kandhmal (Orissa) conflict, when Hindu tribals hiding out in the forests express their fear of being lynched by Christian mobs or their Maoist collaborators – but the news-anchor comments before them along the lines of “look how much they have been threatened so that they they lie out of fear”.  What reports have ever been covered by Mustafa’s secular colleagues on the atrocities carried out by Muslim gangs in Kerala, or West Bengal, or Assam? Did they go and ever give any space to any views on the “other” side, if that other side did not happen to be Muslim or Christian? It is exactly these sort of biased behaviour that strengthens the more radical among the Hindu!

There was a time when reporters followed the news, reporting it as it was, communicating and informing the public, without wearing their prejudice, bias or for that matter, views on their sleeves.

How many times have details of religiously motivated atrocities been ever objectively and impartially reported by the media – without considering the supreme objective of not allowing the tarnishing or exposure of the on-ground modus operandi of extremist religious movements if and only if those movements happen not to be “Hindu”? Riots have been frequent in the state of Uttar Pradesh, atrocities by organized muslim gangs in Kerala, or Bengal – but Mustafa’s colleagues never find the space to report them. By accusing her colleagues of biased and ideologically motivated reporting, Mustafa confirms that Indian media can be and does operate on religious and ideological bias in reporting. In fact many like us draw the inference that it must have been this or that Muslim gang that started a riot – if the media reports it as a violent clash between “two communities”. One way or the other, if the responsibility can be or needed to be – put on “Hindus”, the names or details will be leaked to the sufficient degree to make sure that the conclusion or impression holds.

Afzal Guru has been hung. And apart from the main story the news media has a responsibility to:

one, trace his story with the facts of the case highlighted;

two, review the trial through important voices to see whether he had the best legal advice at hand or whether he was virtually left unrepresented;

three, to find out (and not just from official quotes) whether his family was informed in time, and were asked to meet him as per the humane provisions of law;

four, to seek answers to the commonly asked questions as to why the rush now, has it been prompted by political considerations;

five, to look at the possible political consequences of the hanging at this point in time and analyse whether the death of one man was worth what might follow.

This constitutes responsible reporting. As for the beating of the drums, this can be safely left to the political parties and the government who have held innumerable press conferences to applaud the act.

Has this ever been done by Mustafa’s colleagues when the victims of religiously motivated violence were non-Muslims or non-Christians? Even Sikhs were not always given the benefit of “unbiasedness”! Recently unusually (for Indian courts in such cases) harsh sentences were passed on BJP political leader for her alleged complicity in riot violence against Muslims – and a woman to boot – in Gujarat, on a peculiar legalistic claim that her “crimes” deserved exemplary punishments (I thought law was usually claimed to be about “fairness” and not about “examples”). Did Mustafa and her colleagues go and research the “other” side’s views? Did they report allegations of one “victim” having been in the habit of pulling out his firearm on previous occasions to threaten non-muslims or even use the firearm [I did not see any follow-ups, even debunking attempts, of this by any of Mustafas  secular colleagues]. Significantly, she uses an expression that has often been used in the past by the Indian state, predominantly the Congress and the Leftists, and in some cases – ideology-less regional charismatics, to clamp down on protests against Islamic claims of immunity from even verbal criticism. The ubiquitious claim is that “any crackdown on Islamic violence, protests, or outrage, or even protest or criticism of an Islamic gang coercive street rampage behaviour – is going to lead to a deterioration of law and order problem”. On this excuse Indian state regimes often pre-emptively strike on opposition to Islamic claims, and such an attitude has been primarily responsible for the threats and attacks on writers the Islamic shariacracy in India think of as damaging to their agenda of Islamization of India – like the banning of Salman Rushdie’s book, or the hounding out of the exiled woman author from Bangladesh – Tasleema Nasreen.

Journalists are supposed to play the devil’s advocate, be on the other side of the fence as it were, and review the story in all its dimensions. Indian democracy has many views, and a media that insists only on one view as ‘nationalist’ promotes a monolith that is in contradiction to the pluralism and diversity of this country..

Unfortunately, Mustafa’s case seems to rest on having all these benefits as privileges of the Islamic only – and her voice comes out when she effectively sees these privileges being taken away from the Islamic. Mustafa even does not realize that “nationalism” has its boundaries and terms of debate that cannot be allowed to be infinitely stretched. Otherwise, no attack on the “nation” can be opposed logically, for there will always be a “diversified” view that supports exactly such attacks as valid becausee they do not agree to “our” definition of  “our nationhood”. One day, the presence of non-Muslims will become problematic for “nation-hood” – the argument used by the jihadis of Muslim League and Jamaatis to unleash the partition genocide and carve out “Muslim” nations.

The terror attack on Parliament was heinous. And could have been far more disastrous had the terrorists been able to enter the building.

But Mustafa fails to say that 12 people were killed in that attack. Is this part of merely factual reporting too?Is not “heinous” a qualitative expression and not an objective one?

It was clear at the onset that the police had no clue about the attackers. Finally, Delhi [ Images ] university lecturer S A R Geelani was arrested, and then Afzal Guru was picked up. Geelani’s trial took a chequered course, but because of the support in Delhi and the involvement of wellknown lawyers, he was finally released.

Guru was from Kashmir and unable to afford a decent lawyer. He did not have the money and as senior advocate Kamini Jaiswal managed to say hastily on a news channel, he went virtually unrepresented.

Geelani, contacted by Rediff.com, one of the news sites doing its job professionally, said, “Afzal Guru was denied a fair trial. This has been proved in his last moments. I do not understand the attitude of the government. They have done nothing but play to the gallery.”

“Do you know there is a case pending in the Supreme Court of India ? The court has been looking into the delay into this case, arguments are going on and the matter is pending justice.”

‘Do you think it was right to hurry up the matter?’

“The due process of law has not been followed. This is nothing but a flawed process.”

But somehow we have becomes so blood thirsty as a nation, so wedded to war and violence (largely because of TRP ratings) that we do not like to ask any questions. After all, even a death row convict has rights, or is the case now that all these chaps should be shown no mercy and hung the moment they are convicted by the courts?

As wellknown women rights lawyer Indira Jaising said, while arguing against the death penalty, is there not a right to reform, and if even reform for some is seen as impossible, is there not a right to remorse? And should not it be the job of the sane voice of journalism to ensure that at least the rule of law is respected, and the rights of an individual acknowledged?

The interesting piece about Indian journalism is revealed in the way the “facts” are presented here. Somehow the Indian “police” are seen to be “obviously” not having a clue “right from the beginning”. I am not sure how many police forces of the world have clues to crimes being committed “right from the beginning” – for such details in prior knowledge would in most case lead to prevention of the crime actually being committed. From this “obviousness” in the eyes of the journalist, an ominous silence hangs to the onset of the next statement about Afzal being picked up after the arrest of another. The insinuation perhaps intended is that somehow this allegation of “obvious lack of clue” should encourage the reader to suspect that the police arrested Afzal without any proof or evidence.  If the evidence gathering process was so good and reliable in passing sentences on Kandhmal and Gujarat riot accused after long delays and twists and turns that could have raised even more serious concerns about police “capabilities or intentions” – why is it suddenly so unreliable when the accused is implicated in a violent terrorist attack on the very symbolic seat of Indian democracy?

The impact of the hanging can have damaging repercussions at different levels, and far more than this government will be able to handle. The media informs us, through the usual sources, that the decision was taken after top-level meetings and discussions. So one is led to believe it was a considered decision.

Instead of instilling confidence, this actually evokes fear, fear of being led by a government that clearly is unable to make the right assessments and basically does not care if parts of the country go up in flames.

The government has bitten the bullet as channels screamed with joy, but there is every possibility of the bullet exploding in its mouth. And this is what makes one wonder at a political leadership that willfully invites trouble.

Aspects of the case, as has been pointed out by lawyers as well, were before the Supreme Court and the government could have easily ridden the issue out instead of converting it into a storm that will hit it, in all likelihood, in Kashmir.

The military has clamped down in Jammu and Kashmir. As a resident there said, “Not even a leaf is fluttering here.” But while the state can be confident of maintaining control in normal circumstances, and beating down demonstrations, it also realises that one civilian death will snowball into a major uprising.

The February 11, 1984 hanging of Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front leader Maqbool Bhatt led to a decade of the worst violence that India has ever seen. It is true that Afzal Guru does not have the same stature in terms of a leadership profile, but in terms of sympathy and support he was probably far ahead.

Besides, the alienation and anger in Kashmir is in a heightened stage, more so after the death of the young boys in the 2010 stone pelting incidents. A Facebook post by this columnist on Afzal Guru’s hanging has elicited a volley of responses reflecting this anger and alienation and asking why those responsible for the death of the boys have not met with similar punishment.

Now that sounds like a threat, isn’t it? It is time that the pretenders of secularism who actually effectively, on the ground, promote and protect Islamism by their selective reporting or campaigns at manufacture of social consensus in favour of Islamist agenda – realize, that a new generation is coming up. They are seeking to search out the reality of religious politics, especially of the medievalist brand of religiosity represented by modern Islamism. Even a Morsi cannot easily take an Egypt back to the 7th century one-sided propaganda that targeted all other cultures and human freedoms or civilizational achievements for erasure.If Mustafa is so concerned about the Kashmiri boys trained to give a Intifada style uprising – is she also concerned about the Kashmiri Hindus murdered, raped, looted at the start of the Shariafication drive of the Valley in the late 80’s – long before the excuse of all Muslim reaction stemming from the destruction of the disputed structure at Ayodhya could be given ?

The only logical explanation, thus, for the sudden hanging of Afzal Guru is the fact that general elections are around the corner.

And the Congress in its usual cynical manipulation of the votes is trying to eat into the majority constituency with this action. As for the Kashmiris they do not figure in Delhi’s plans. As for the secular forces, the argument voiced by Congress leaders is: ‘Where will you go. If there is Modi as prime minister you will have to be with us.’

So the minorities do not figure either, as they are the bechaara who can easily be made to run into Congress arms while fleeing from communal shadows. The secularists too, in the Congress analysis, will not be far behind as there is no Left and hence no Third Front alternative that could attract them in the polls.

So all in all a cozy scenario, except for the fact that the dynamics of India and the aspirations of the people cannot be controlled and tend to upset the most careful calibrations.

Tut -tut! why such a frustration? Is it so bad to be on the receiving end of the religious politics which had been so good for so many decades in expanding the network of madrassahs and Islamism spreading structures fueled by Gulf money and complicity by Islamophile regimes of the Left and Congress? If the Congress is really the supreme popularists they are made out to be, if saffron is really the outcast of Indian politics, and yet the Congress feels the pressure to need to appease the “majority” of the populations of India – that appeasement politics has run its steam off? That no longer should any population be hostage to the type of totalitariansim represented by Islamism – under excuses or threats of “potential damage”?

Take Islamist threats of damaging more liberal societies, and the tactics of emasculating entire societies by trying to raise apocalyptic visions of destruction and “damages” if terrorists are not pampered – with yourselves away from the public space! Nay! Better – speak more about this – because by doing so, the cozy arrangement to manipulate public opinion through clever manipulation of appeal to liberal values to progress non-liberal agenda  and veiled threats of violence otherwise – gets more and more exposed.

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 so far )

Assadfall and Morsification : waiting forever for sure events and primitivization through modernization.

Posted on January 30, 2013. Filed under: Egypt, Islam, Islamic propaganda, Muslims, Obama, Syria, USA |

Frederic C. Hof is a senior fellow of the Rafik Hariri Center for the Middle East at the Atlantic Council and the former Special Advisor for Transition in Syria at the US Department of State. He writes in http://www.acus.org/viewpoint/syria-transitional-government-and-us-choices

The Syrian revolution is not America’s to win or lose. The American Revolution was not France’s to win or lose. Yet without the support of France, American independence could have been deferred indefinitely and disastrously. Without American support, the uprising of Syrians against a regime willing to assault their dignity and take their lives in addition to picking their pockets, might have died an early death. Yet now a point of decision has arrived. For the Syrian opposition to form a government offering all Syrians a credible and convincing alternative to the Assad-Makhluf family clique, the United States will have to step up its game. Reluctance to do so is understandable. Failure to do so could be disastrous.

A serious level American authority on things Syrian – urges US administration to dither its coyness and go for it atta boy! If the American expert is really at the desperate spot where he has to urge the US admin to pitch in to give legitimacy to the “opposition”, then it is a very desperate spot indeed.

Stop and think. Why is “political legitimacy” and acceptance by the Syrian “folk”, dependent on US admin? Shouldn’t “democratic” movements be already politically legitimate to the people? If they have not already obtained their democratic legitimacy – how can an external agency, force, suddenly convince “people”?

More importantly, what is much more dangerously significant for Americans, do Americans think that democracy can never stand on its own feet without outside, “well intentioned” intervention? Was the American war of independence dependent on French intervention? Are all people’s search for liberation – dependent on external help? Is not outside help and intervention a forever delegitimizing factor for any movement of liberation? Forever, such a movement will be and can be accused of being the result of foreign aggression, collaboration with outsiders and hostiles. As has happened throughout the world in the 20th century.

In the other direction, Morsi of the Muslim Brotherhood is now the head of a regime in Egypt, that has started unraveling the country in his attempts to drag Egypt back to the medieval period under the pretension of modernizing it – or even pretend that the leopard of Islamism can change its spots after all.  People have risen against the government’s orders of curfew, and even the military has stopped short of enforcing the curfew. Youth of Egypt who had risen up against the “ancien regime” of Mubarak (who had made his selective compromise with Islamist theologians and publicly went for selective Muslim Brotherhood bashing – all the while allowing the clergy to carry on the classic Islamist propaganda) now find themselves against something even more primitive than Mubarak.

Thus Morsi has shown how to bring a society back to its more primitive form through formal top dressing of apparent modernization.

Two words came to mind :
“Assadfall” : an event declared to be surely happening, but happening forever
“Morsification” – the modernist Islamist technique of “primitivizing” a society through apparent modernization.

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Islamo-Judaic Relations : politically correct mythology – 5: late-Medieval to the modern.

Posted on April 7, 2012. Filed under: Arab, Christians, diaspora, Egypt, exile, Gaza, Historians with political agenda, History, Islam, Islamic propaganda, Israel, Jew, Jihad, Muslims, Ottoman, Palestine, religion, Syria, terrorism, Turkey, UK |

Maimonides (1135-1204), was a famous Jewish philosopher and author who fled Spain from a murderous Muslim persecution and took up the job of a physician to Saladin. However over time his experiences come out in his “Letter to Yemen” [1]

“[as punishment] God has hurled us into the midst of this people, the Arabs, who have persecuted us severely, and passed baneful and discriminatory legislation against us… Never did a nation molest, degrade, debase, and hate us as much as they.”

Maimonides had correspondence with Jews over a large area (yes, including India), and was therefore in a position to compare.

The 9th century Muslim writer al-Jahiz (an Arab settled in Baghdad) wrote: “…the hearts of the Muslims are hardened toward the Jews but inclined toward the Christians.”[2] He pointed out that “in his time the Christians were both socially and economically better off than the Jews.”[3] He explained this by the political resistance of the Jews of Medina to Muhammad.

In this contemporary chronicle from Baghdad by Obadyah the Proselyte, in 1100 C.E.: [7: …the Caliph of Baghdad, al—Muqtadi [1075—1094], had given power to his vizier, Abu Shuja… [who] imposed that each male Jew should wear a yellow badge on his headgear. This was one distinctive sign on the head and the other was on the neck— a piece of lead of the weight of a silver dinar hanging round the neck of every Jew and inscribed with the word dhimmi to signify that the Jew had to pay poll—tax. Jews also had to wear girdles round their wastes. Abu Shuja further imposed two signs on Jewish women. They had to wear a black and a red shoe, and each woman had to have a small brass bell on her neck or shoe, which would tinkle and thus announce the separation of Jewish from Gentile [Muslim] women. He assigned cruel Muslim men to spy upon Jewish women, in order to oppress them with all kinds of curses, humiliation, and spite. The Gentile population used to mock all the Jews, and the mob and their children used to beat up the Jews in all the streets of Baghdad…When a Jew died, who had not paid up the poll—tax [jizya] to the full and was in debt for a small or large amount, the Gentiles did not permit burial until the poll—tax was paid. If the deceased left nothing of value, the Gentiles demanded that other Jews should, with their own money, meet the debt owed by the deceased in poll—tax; otherwise they [threatened] they would burn the body.”

Bernard Lewis refers to attempts at reform in the 19th century Ottoman empire by quoting a Turk “… whereas in former times, in the Ottoman state, the communities were ranked, with the Muslims first, then the Greeks [Greek Orthodox], then the Armenians, then the Jews, now all of them were put on the same level. Some Greeks objected to this, saying: “The government has put us together with the Jews. We were content with the supremacy of Islam.”[4] Most likely this refers to the reform decrees that resulted out of the power struggle between Muhammad Ali of Egypt and the Ottomans.

The British envoy, Dr John Bowring was in Lebanon and Syria in the 1830s, and he writes:

The Mussulmans. . . deeply deplore the loss of that sort of superiority which they all & individually exercised over and against the other sects. . . a Mussulman. . . believes and maintains that a Christian — and still more a Jew — is an inferior being to himself.[5] […] The condition of the Jews forms, perhaps, an exception [to the general improvement of non-Muslims] and cannot be said to have improved comparatively with that of the other Sects[6]

Towards the end of Mameluk rule (from the Mongol withdrawal in 1260 to the Ottoman conquest in 1517), a Franciscan monk named Francesco Suriano lived in the monastery in Jerusalem for about a quarter of a century. He served as Custos Terrae Sanctae or Guardian of the Holy Land for his order for some time and therefore the highest ranking Catholic official there, charged by the pope with overseeing Roman Catholic interests in the Christian holy places and Church affairs in the country. He writes about the Jews in Jerusalem:

“I wish you to know how these dogs of Jews are trampled upon, beaten and ill-treated, as they deserve, by every infidel nation, and this is the just decree of God. They live in this country in such subjection that words cannot describe it. . . there in Jerusalem, where they committed the sin for which they are dispersed throughout the world [i.e., the Crucifixion], they are by God more punished and afflicted than in any other part of the world. And over a long time I have witnessed that . . . No infidel [= Muslim] would touch with his hand a Jew lest he be contaminated but when they wish to beat them, they take off their shoes with which they strike them on the mustaches; the greatest wrong and insult to a man is to call him a Jew. And it is a right notable thing that the Moslems do not accept a Jew into their creed unless he first become a Christian. . . And if they were not subsidized by the Jews of Christendom, the Jews who live in Judea would die like dogs of hunger.”[7]

The Ottoman Empire needed the Jewish expertise in various fields including finances so initially after conquest they brought in some of the more outstanding into service. This was vehemently opposed by the local muslims. Therefore, “The Jewish community… paid the jizya at rates somewhat higher than the [Greek] Orthodox.”[8] Now, even under and after such “great” patronage by the Ottomans, Chateaubriand, (a famous French author), visited Jerusalem in 1806, and later wrote:

Special target of all contempt [i.e., of both Muslims and Christians], they lower their heads without complaint; they suffer all insults without demanding justice; they let themselves be crushed by blows… Penetrate the dwellings of these people, you will find them in frightful poverty…

Nothing can prevent them from turning their gaze towards Zion. When one sees the Jews dispersed throughout the world,… one is probably surprised, but, to be struck by supernatural astonishment, it is necessary to find them in Jerusalem.. . to see these legitimate owners of Judea, slaves and strangers in their own land. One must see them under all oppressions, awaiting a king who is to redeem them.[9]

Neophytos was a Greek Orthodox monk belonging to the Brotherhood of the Holy Sepulcher, which governed Orthodox church affairs in Jerusalem. Around 1834, Neophytos writes:

“As we are on the question of repairs, we must say something about the Jewish Synagogue. One year ago only, seeing the liberal dispositions of Mehemet Ali Pasha [Muhammad Ali] and Ibrahim Pasha [his son, general, and deputy], they dared to speak about their Synagogue. They asked that their House of Prayer, being in a ruinous condition and in danger of falling in, might be repaired. So, those who did not even dare to change a tile on the roof of the Synagogue at one time, now received a permit and a decree to build.”[10]

Felix Bovet, a Swiss Protestant minister who visited Jerusalem in 1858, writes “the Jews are still, to this day, the most miserable part of the population of the Holy City.”[11] Bovet quotes a French convert to Islam, who wrote: “the Jerusalem Jew only half lives, scarcely daring to breathe.”[12]

References
1. Maimonides, “Epistle to Yemen,” in David Hartman, ed., Crisis and Leadership: Epistles of Maimonides (tr. A Halkin; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society 1985), p 126.

2. Quoted in Bernard Lewis, The Jews of Islam (Princeton 1984), pp 59-60.

3. Words of Moshe Sharon, op. cit., p 94; also see Carlo Panella, Il ‘Complotto Ebraico’ — L’antisemitismo islamico da Maometto a Bin Laden (Torino: Lindau 2005), p 89

4. Bernard Lewis, What Went Wrong? (London: Orion House 2002), p 104.

5. Quoted in William R Polk, The Opening of South Lebanon, 1788-1840 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press 1963), p 138. Other 19th century Western observers noted the same Arab-Muslim Judeophobia, as quoted by Saul S Friedman, Land of Dust (Washington, DC: University Press of America 1982), p 136.

6. William R Polk, The Opening of South Lebanon, 1788-1840 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press 1963), p 138.

7. Francesco Suriano, Treatise on the Holy Land (Jerusalem: Franciscan Press, 1949) [in original: Trattato di Terra Santa e dell’Oriente], pp 101-02. For a scholarly view of the Jews in Jerusalem in the late Mamluk period, when Suriano lived there, see Avraham David in “The Mamluk Period” in Israel: People, Land, State (Avigdor Shinan, ed.: Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben Zvi, 2005).

8. Amnon Cohen, “On the Realities of the Millet System: Jerusalem in the 16th century,” in B Braude and B Lewis, Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Empire (New York: Holmes & Meier 1982), p 14.

9. Chateaubriand, Itinéraire de Paris à Jérusalem (Paris: Juilliard 1964), pp 426-427.

10. Neophytos, Extracts from Annals of Palestine 1821-1841 (Jerusalem, Ariel Publishing House, 1979; compiled by Eli Schiller), p 78. Originally published in Journal of the Palestine Oriental Society, vol. XVIII (1938; tr S N Spyridon).

11. Felix Bovet, Egypt, Palestine, and Phoenicia (Eng. trans; London: 1872), p 180

12. Ibid., p 181.

Discussion

The more one studies the history of Islamic repression on the Jews, the more one comes up with the stark reality that in many many ways, the Islamic treatment simply picked up and intensified the iconoclastic violence and genocidic tendencies latent within the Churches of east. In many many ways, the appearance of the Islamics provided a tool and a hope in the eastern churches to actually achieve what they had so far failed to do – the complete elimination of the Jews as a physical reality.

From this started a whole lot of processes :

(1) realizing that the Jews will remain strongly resistant to conversion in spite of certain disgruntled Jews switching allegiance and acting against their own origin community (not surprising for Hindus of India!). As long as the Jews remained adamant to conversion, Jews are a problem to the two other claimants of the sole rights to the Abrahamic legacy (which in turn in its proselytizing/converting form is a most effective tool for imperialism).

(2) try and blame all atrocities , or even invent genocide/exile/enslavement on a grand scale and assign it to “Romans” (not the Church primarily)

(3) suppress all references to non-genocidic/encouraging behaviour from “Roman” authorities

(4) when instigating “Roman” authorities as much as possible to eliminate the Jews was not achieving this goal, the Islamists were a “Godsend”. This is shown in the active collaboration of the Eastern Churches leadership with the Islamists and Jihadists to eliminate and repress Jews to an extent they could only rant about but not actually implement under “Roman” rule. The combined effort achieves the target to a much greater degree than ever achieved before in the pre-Islamic period.

(5) jihadis use this eagerness in Church leadership to intensify their dhimma policy – which is not toleration as represented by Islamists and their non-Muslim apologists, neither is it a purely “social discrimination” non-physical-violence non-Jihad thing. It is a double edged sword, by first enforcing a one-sided set of extremely harsh and almost impossible to meet conditions on the Jews, and then systematically and regularly claim that the “covenants” of the dhimma had been broken so jihad was now applicable to the captive population of dhimmis.

(6) gradually Jihadis tighten the noose on Levantine non-Muslims, especially Christians who are increasingly subjected to forced conversions, genocide and enslavement once the Islamists gain a foothold with their leaders’ initial weaknesses, and this in turn makes the Christian leadership more and more eager to please the Islamists. They start suppressing evidence of Jihadi violence on Christians (unfortunately even the most enlightened so-called paragons of tolerance Ottoman behaviour in this regard is also historically documented) and increase their collaboration in persecution of Jews in the hope of achieving their aims of cleansing of the land of the Jews.

(7) this leads to the western churches being ideologically cornered since eastern churches have to justify their collaboration with the Islamics on the “original sin” or so called responsibility of “deicide”. This concept of collective responsibility was taken to its extreme both by the christians as well as the muslim leadership, but finds its perfection under Islamic leadership of christianity. So the major “expulsions” and “genocides” have to be put at the door of the Roman empire BEFORE the acceptance of Christianity as a Roman imperial religion.

“Sado-masochism” – the almost sexual enjoyment of giving and receiving intense pain (mental as well as physical)- is perhaps a key to understand this modern (and not so modern) Christian reaction against the Jews which intensified under Islamic leadership over the greater part of Christian leadership’s mindset. Its intensity and naked expression in Jihadi Islam is simply the next stage of development from Christian attitudes towards the origin – perhaps a generalization of father-son antagonistic dynamic so insightfully discovered by a man of Jewish origins, Sigmund Freud. The Judaic being the father, and Christianity the elder born, and Islam the younger, with the sons having a raging sibling rivalry, a shared hatred of the father who stands between them and the mother – the legacy of the Abrahamic.

Now why should it find expression in some Indians who were born as Hindus? Perhaps the same mindset that led to a few Jewish converts into Islam or Christianity – an unconscious attraction for the possibilities of gratifying their sado-masochastic tendencies!

Each of the points (1)-(7) can be supported with documented sources. I have already mentioned once on the modern thinking in a large part “professional historians” on the so-called “greater role” of Romans in the “diaspora”. Apparently many like the one I mentioned have argued for the whole thing being a “myth”(!!) and that there was really no traumatic dispersal at the scales of hundreds of thousands or millions under the Romans [ there are detailed arguments about the 1.1 million being absurd based on actual estimates of food production, archaeological reconstructions of living conditions and settlement estimates, etc.] – according to these “experts”.

Maybe the pro-Islamics of all colours should unite against these very Jewish profs and academics as being part of a Zionist conspiracy with overt pro-Palestinian sympathies but actually undermining the whole Islamist cause!! Denying the key-pivot of Roman role in Diaspora combined with source narrative claims from Islamists themselves about atrocities and genocide perpetrated by Muslims on the Jews is problematic for the Islamist-line of Palestinian “movement”.

Part 4

To be continued.

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 so far )

Islamo-Judaic Relations : politically correct mythology – 4 : From departure of Muhammad to Islamist Conquest of Palestine and Syria

Posted on March 1, 2012. Filed under: Antisemitism, Arab, Christians, diaspora, Egypt, exile, Gaza, Historians with political agenda, History, Islam, Islamic propaganda, Israel, Jew, Jihad, Muslims, Palestine, religion, Roman, Syria, terrorism |

From the successful genocide at Khyber and land grab, in the late 620’s until his death, Muhammad tried to expand the reach of his army towards Syria and Palestine. His first attempt with an open declared campaign (for the first time in his life, because previously he had always relied on surprise and deception) against Heraclius was a disaster, and at this time we have reports of increasing dissent against his leadership. So Muhammad renewed his earlier strategy of covert and piecemeal targeting of isolated communities and tribes.

During this phase he was taken ill and passed away, according to the Hadiths, exactly at the time when a new and larger expedition was being planned against the then Byzantine held territories of Syria and Palestine. The expedition did take off, and similar expeditions were then subsequently organized until finally at the Battle of Yarmouk a large Byzantine army was defeated and Heraclius abandoned Syria and Palestine and went back to Constantinople. This is just within 10 years of Khyber. However many cities held out.

Some Bedouin nomadic tribes at this period did hover around in the frontierland between Byzantium and beyond (the southern desert of Palestine, west of the Euphrates (Hira) in the Syrian desert, Palmyra), where for a long time due to the competition with the persians, the Byzantines had come to an arrangement of benefits and payment to enlist the large nomadic Arab tribes as a bulwark against raids from beyond. The arable inner regions and the cities were populated by Aramaic speaking Jews and Christians. The contemporary writings of the Church Fathers and in Talmudic sources show that they had little or no identification/sympathy with the Bedouins (who spoke a different language) and actually were quite hostile because they faced constant raids. [1]

Moshe Gil, [1] quotes surviving sources from the defeated indigenous non-Muslim populations, to show that they

“reflect the attitude of the towns and villages in Palestine quite accurately; the attitude of a sedentary population, of farmers and craftsmen, toward nomads whose source of income is the camel and who frequently attack the towns, pillage and slaughter the inhabitants, and endanger the lives of the wayfarer. These sources completely contradict the argument to the effect that the villagers and townsmen in Palestine accepted the invasion of those tribes bearing the banner of Islam with open arms of their so-called racial affinity.” [This is a copyrighted book, so I cannot quote extensively. Those interested do look up]

The whole Gaza region up to Kaiseria [Caesarea] was sacked and devastated in the campaign of 634. Four thousand Jewish, Christian, and Samaritan peasants who defended their land were massacred. The villages of the Negev were looted. Cities such as Jerusalem, Gaza, Jaffa, Caesarea, Nablus, and Beth Shean were isolated and closed their gates. In his sermon on Christmas day 634 CE, the patriarch of Jerusalem, Sophronius, says “the Christians are being forcibly kept in Jerusalem…chained and nailed by fear of the Saracens, whose savage, barbarous and bloody sword kept them locked up in the town”. In 636, Sophronius, [Day of the Epiphany 636], writes of the destruction of the churches and monasteries, the sacked towns, the fields laid waste, the villages burned down by the “nomads” [generic name for Arabs including Islamics whom the Byzantine Christians were yet to recognize as any significant independent faith system] who were overrunning the country. In a letter the same year to Sergius, the patriarch of Constantinople, he mentions the ravages wrought by the Arabs. Thousands of people perished in 639, falling victim to the raids as well as the famine and plague that resulted from these destructions. [2] For Jerusalem, according to one version of the terms of the treaty with the Patriarch for surrender, “Jews” would not be allowed to remain within the city.

According to Baladhuri (d. 892 C.E. – his name also comes up in connection with records of campaigns in Sindh in India), 40,000 Jews [20,000 according to some translations] lived in Caesarea alone at the Arab conquest, after which all trace of them is lost. [3] Tabari further reports that 4000 survivors were taken prisoner and transported out of the region and given as slaves to Muslims in Al-Jurf. [4]

Gil further shows that the period of the conquest was also that of the destruction of the synagogues and churches of the Byzantine era, remnants of which have been turning up in archaeological discoveries. Towns in the western strip and the central strip (the region of the red sand hills and the swamps) in the Sharon, decreased from fifty-eight to seventeen. It is estimated that the erosion of the soil from the western slopes of the Judaean mountains reached as a result of the decultivation during the Muslim period to almost 2,000 to 4,000 cubic meters. The direct evidence of the destruction of agriculture and the desertion of the villages is shown by the fact that the papyri of Nessana are completely discontinued after the year 700. [1]

Similar conclusions have been reached in archaeological analysis with Negev being reduced to a wasteland. Gil has translated these observations by the 10th century Karaite [The rationalist movement within Judaism started by Maimonides] commentator Yefet b. Ali recording that there was great destruction in Palestine and that there were places which remained uninhabited, while there were other places to which people returned and settled:

“the places which were completely destroyed so that no memory of them remains, like Samaria…are the places which have been destroyed and ruined, but despite this there are guards and people living there, such as Hebron and others” [1]

There is no reason to expect, like some of us probably do – that just within 10 years the entire spirit of Badr, Khyber would be forgotten and abandoned by Islamism – all of a sudden when they overrun Palestine.

[1] Moshe Gil, A History of Palestine, 634-1099

[2] Bat Yeor, “Islam and the Dhimmis”, The Jerusalem Quarterly, 1987, Vol. 42,

[3] The origins of the Islamic state, being a translation from the Arabic, accompanied with annotations, geographic and historic notes of the Kitab futuh al-buldan of al-Imam abu-l Abbas Ahmad ibn-Jabir al-Baladhuri -p213 [4] Ibid p216-218

Part 3

Part 5

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Mubarak for Mubarak : what are you upto, Egypt?

Posted on February 11, 2011. Filed under: Arab, Egypt, Gaza, Hosni Mubarak, Israel, Turkey, USA |

The soon-to-be-ex-President of Egypt, Hosni Mubarak is leaving – even if he pretends not to leave. He is leaving behind thirty years of Middle Eastern politics where Egypt has tried to delude itself that it has finally thrown off the shadow of colonial control. The history of colonial control, British and French and Ottoman, is too well known, for us to repeat to boredom. But now since Mubarak is going – do the young Egyptians have an opportunity to look back on their at least two-thousand years of subjugation to foreign powers?

First, does Egypt has an identity of its own? Does it have a national foundation which is uniquely Egyptian and which will provide the rallying point for its society and youth to cluster around? Does Egypt have something which makes it unique among the Middle Eastern and Eastern Mediterranean circle of nations and people?

The name Mubarak itself comes from an Arabic root, ironically showing how much Arabic culture has replaced that of Egypt. The first signs of a nation of people losing its identity and becoming the slave of another is losing its original language, its mother-tongue. Whatever be the reason for Arabic expansion into the land of the then Copts – at least the Coptic had far greater connections to the Egypt of the old, its imperial past where it ruled much of populated parts of its neighbourhood. From that thread, can the new Egypt reinvent itself as distinct and separate and a path breaker for Eastern Mediterranean?

Second, actually is closely related to the first. A lot of Egypt’s problems came to be Egypt’s problems because it thought itself as Arab, and made Arab causes Egyptian causes. It fought Arab wars against Arab’s enemies, made Arab’s friends its friends and Arab’s enemies its own enemies.

Does Egypt really have to make Israel its unconditional enemy, because the Muslim Brotherhood wants Egypt to fight Arab or Iranian wars? Does Egypt need to make Israel its unconditional friend because its military needs American support? Does Egypt have to tolerate a pseudo-transition where the more things change the more they remain the same?

The youth of Egypt can make a new Turkey out of itself, or something uniquely Egyptian. It can reinvent itself, by not constraining to any of its obligations to colonizers – Europeans, Greeks, Arabs, Turks, Arabs, Europeans – in sequence. It remained colonized in its national spirit even after formal presence of colonizers were gone. Egypt’s spirit is lost under the burden of Europe and Arab causes, jealousies and insecurities.

Can you, Egypt’s young, steer a path of your own? Can the young of Tahreer square form a new party of your own on the spot- declare a Constituent Assembly and elect your own parliament, and declare your own interim government of transition? Can you declare yourself neutral in international politics of the region  -a policy of equidistance from the two sides in the everlasting Middle Eastern conflicts and chart a programme of profound reform aimed inside the country? Otherwise your sacrifices will only feed the old colonial interests – including that of the Arabs.

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...